If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

There are those who would view such a situation as an obligation on my part. Their logic is that by not sharing, I am guaranteeing the death of someone else. I don't agree with that logic, and neither do you, but it is the basis of much of our tax policy, which treats those who have a resource as having an obligation to share it so that those who lack it will not be left without.

Has our right to control our own bodies been impeached when our quality of life is unaffected by an action? This is the basis of a progressive tax policy and whether this is shared or devoted to a single source such as the military and/or the operation of basic government is irrelevant...the basis of the policy is the same; it is still progressive.

My question to you is specifically with respect to our right to control our bodies vs. another's right to life. And yes, both of us both of us side with our right to control our own bodies but wouldn't religious etiquette and values lend itself towards the right to life? I submit that the answer is yes and herein lies the basic weakness when relying solely on religious values as our guide...they do not lead us to the correct set of values for a nation based on maximizing individual freedom.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

On the contrary, the Progressives thought that eugenics was consistent with natual laws of evolution, and to an extent, they were correct. One can select for specific traits and breed out those members of a species that lack them. Our history of animal domestication proves this. The science of eliminating traits that were deemed undesirable was not illogical, but when you apply the practices of culling and selective breeding to people, you get evil on a massive scale. Logic only works in that context if you value freedom over coercion and see life as having value in and of itself, rather than only being of value if it advances the species as a whole.

The point you are missing is that eugenics is not the sole domain of progressiveness. There was nothing progressive in our breeding of slaves to achieve the most suitable workers for hard labor but they follow the exact premise you are applying. And there is nothing in progressiveness that predicates genetics over our right to control our own bodies. Our right to control our own bodies forms the basis of all freedom and no where does logic lead us to surrender that right based on genetic traits else progressive would have been against any freeing of the slaves and/or social equality. Yet this is not the case is it. It is not the progressive who stood nor now stands against social equality.

And one other point to make here: progressiveness is but a single trait of liberalism. The philosophy behind liberalism is rationalism and the basis of rationalism is logic. The beauty of logic is that it can always be questioned and it is because we can question that we can avoid the traps of the conservative irrationalist whose edict is not to question values handed to them by their gods.

And when we look at history it is when we cannot question that the weak fall victim to the strong...

Originally Posted by Odysseus

How does placing the monument make them the law of the land, any more than having a statue of Justicia makes the Roman legal code the law of the land?

If there is no purpose behind its placement then none...

Originally Posted by Odysseus

The Supreme Court often interprets laws in ways that leave sane people in shock. They have interpreted the Interstate Commerce Clause to be applicable to grain grown for personal consumption on a family farm. They have interpreted language in a Civil Rights Act that specifically bans racial discrimination to permit it, provided the right race is discriminated against. They have banned capital punishment as unconstitutional, even though the Constitution specifically mentions it in the context of legally sanctioned punishments, and then subsequently reversed themselves. They interpreted the 14th Amendment as permitting segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson) and then reversed themselves in Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court's power of judicial review was established by the Supreme Court, in a massive usurpation of power.

Whether we are shocked at the supreme courts rulings is irrelevant...they are the rule of law and here the supreme court has ruled that where religious texts are held together as examples of secular law they are permissible and where they are placed individually they are banned. And this should not be a surprise since this is very much in line with our founding principles on religious freedom. What goes very much against our founding principles is the dominance of a single religious text or symbol over others..

Originally Posted by Odysseus

In the case of the Ten Commandments, which applied to the tribal culture of the Hebrews, a child was presumed to know his/her parents. They had obligations towards their children, and the children had obligations to their parents. Given several generations of slavery in Egypt, those obligations had been eroded. Children could be separated from parents at the whim of the slave owner and the elderly were not provided for when they were no longer of value as slaves. Thus, the basic family structures were destroyed and needed restoration. That is the basis of the Commandment.

And none of this has anything to do with me and millions like me. This is the point...other than as an example of secular law they are largely irrelevant to our Rule of Law. And where they do apply there is an equally strong argument that they are based on natural law derived from logic.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

Parenthood is far more than biological happenstance. Parents raise children, nurture them, see them to adulthood and provide love, protection and guidance as long as they are able to do so. In return for that, children provide for their parents as they age. If that is not your experience, you have my deepest sympathy, but it is the norm for most of us.

We have a divorce rate of 50% and climbing and with two parents working to earn a living, children today are just as likely to raise themselves as to be raised by their parents. This is the norm for most of us not the love, protection, guidance, and eventual reciprocation you express.

Has our right to control our own bodies been impeached when our quality of life is unaffected by an action? This is the basis of a progressive tax policy and whether this is shared or devoted to a single source such as the military and/or the operation of basic government is irrelevant...the basis of the policy is the same; it is still progressive.

My question to you is specifically with respect to our right to control our bodies vs. another's right to life. And yes, both of us both of us side with our right to control our own bodies but wouldn't religious etiquette and values lend itself towards the right to life? I submit that the answer is yes and herein lies the basic weakness when relying solely on religious values as our guide...they do not lead us to the correct set of values for a nation based on maximizing individual freedom.

No, your question to me was whether logic could be our sole guide to morality. You tried to cite an example where logic would force the outcome that you wanted, but I pointed out that this was not the case. The idea of a right to control your own body is a relatively recent one. Most human societies condoned slavery, for example, and applied all manner of logic to its perpetuation. Logic, by itself, is sterile. It cannot supply a moral framework, it can only provide guidance within one.

Originally Posted by PeterS

The point you are missing is that eugenics is not the sole domain of progressiveness. There was nothing progressive in our breeding of slaves to achieve the most suitable workers for hard labor but they follow the exact premise you are applying. And there is nothing in progressiveness that predicates genetics over our right to control our own bodies. Our right to control our own bodies forms the basis of all freedom and no where does logic lead us to surrender that right based on genetic traits else progressive would have been against any freeing of the slaves and/or social equality. Yet this is not the case is it. It is not the progressive who stood nor now stands against social equality.

And one other point to make here: progressiveness is but a single trait of liberalism. The philosophy behind liberalism is rationalism and the basis of rationalism is logic. The beauty of logic is that it can always be questioned and it is because we can question that we can avoid the traps of the conservative irrationalist whose edict is not to question values handed to them by their gods.

And when we look at history it is when we cannot question that the weak fall victim to the strong...

Again, off topic. Whether or not the Progressives were the only ones who thought that eugenics was a good idea is irrelevant. They believed that it was logical, and their logic, within the goals that they set, was faultless. It was the goals that were horrific, but they didn't care. Again, logic applied without a moral compass can point you anywhere that you want to go.

Originally Posted by PeterS

If there is no purpose behind its placement then none...

If there were no purpose, then it wouldn't be there. You're flailing.

Originally Posted by PeterS

Whether we are shocked at the supreme courts rulings is irrelevant...they are the rule of law and here the supreme court has ruled that where religious texts are held together as examples of secular law they are permissible and where they are placed individually they are banned. And this should not be a surprise since this is very much in line with our founding principles on religious freedom. What goes very much against our founding principles is the dominance of a single religious text or symbol over others..

The Supreme Court is not the rule of law. At its best, it is an agency of that rule, but it is only one branch of our Federal Government. It cannot write law, it can only decide cases based on the laws of the United States. If it errs (and it has, repeatedly, which is why it has repeatedly reversed itself), it does not mean that we are obligated to pretend that, like the Pope, the court is infallible.

Originally Posted by PeterS

And none of this has anything to do with me and millions like me. This is the point...other than as an example of secular law they are largely irrelevant to our Rule of Law. And where they do apply there is an equally strong argument that they are based on natural law derived from logic.

I never said secular law, only historical law. The current collapse of family structures does not invalidate the original intent of the commandment. If anything, it casts its importance into stark relief.

Originally Posted by PeterS

We have a divorce rate of 50% and climbing and with two parents working to earn a living, children today are just as likely to raise themselves as to be raised by their parents. This is the norm for most of us not the love, protection, guidance, and eventual reciprocation you express.

That's very sad for you, and those like you. However, it does not mean that the original commandment was invalid. As I stated above, parents have responsibilities to their children. If, due to a culture that treats parenthood as just another lifestyle choice, they abrogate those responsibilities, then the result is that there will be no one there for them when they need the comfort and support of younger people. The generation that you describe is a sad reminder of how much we have lost, thanks to liberals.

We have a divorce rate of 50% and climbing and with two parents working to earn a living, children today are just as likely to raise themselves as to be raised by their parents. This is the norm for most of us not the love, protection, guidance, and eventual reciprocation you express.

And what is to blame for this? Liberal or conservative values? The divorce rate didn't start to climb until the so called women's movement of the 60's and 70's. Funny how in the days when the traditional household was a mother, who generally stayed home, father, and children the crime rate was lower, education was far superior and life was far better. Now the traditional family is scoffed at by liberals. It's made out to be something evil. They like for everyone to believe that women were some kind of submissive chattel owned by the husband when nothing could have been further from the truth. But what liberals and leftists like you seem to cheer the death of the traditional family is that you want people to look at the government as the matriarch/patriarch of the American family. Orwell hit the nail on the head when it came to the traditional family structure as what he spoke about in 1984 is actually pretty true today that marriage is pretty much a matter of convenience today and not a necessity. It's ok to be a single parent because mother government will take care of your children while you work and even you if you don't feel like working. That is the key to the liberals gaining their foothold. Destroy the traditional family and you can control the population. Well done. I hope you and people like you rot in Hell.

And what is to blame for this? Liberal or conservative values? The divorce rate didn't start to climb until the so called women's movement of the 60's and 70's. Funny how in the days when the traditional household was a mother, who generally stayed home, father, and children the crime rate was lower, education was far superior and life was far better.

Poor women have pretty much always worked outside the home part or full time. So there goes that argument.

I think you are off by ten years. Yes, the sixties were tumultuous, and the 70's were about rejection of tradition, but the 80's and 90's is when we start seeing societal breakdown across the class spectrum.

I am inclined to say that this is because this was the first generation whose fathers didn't almost universally serve in the military. The military tends to have a profound impact on men, especially lower class men and/or those not raised in the best value system. It clears the slate and trains these men to be better citizens. It also educates and prepares.

When I was a kid, almost all of my friend's fathers (white, black, jew, gentile, etc...) had served in WWII or Korea. All of our fathers were married to our mothers. All (and I mean all) of my closest friends' parents remained married until death, even those who like my own parents were on a second marriage by the time we came along. Which is not the same thing as saying that all of my friends' parents were happily married.

I also think that a lot of people fail to make good choices when it comes to extended family. Some people think nothing of taking their kids off on a move away from extended family. I have always considered myself fortunate to have spent so much time with extended family. As a child I was never left with someone who was not a family member. My grandmothers and aunts babysat me and that's how it's supposed to work. My grandfather was the final word on most things.

Getting in here a little late, but just a thought here for PeterS and Nova, your fathers should have worn condoms.

I'm a politically conservative atheist, but I don't shudder or feel faint when I pass a monument with the ten commandments inscribed on them. If either of you had ever read the bible, as I have, you'd know that there are more than 600 commandments, most of which dealt with the every day or religious life of the Hebrews. My sense of morality has caused me to be called too straight-laced at times.

If the ten commandments were "ancient law" years ago, and consistent with "art and culture" at that time, then they certainly still are today - only they are even more ancient.

Now, I've got to get set to watch the Army-Navy game.

Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

No, your question to me was whether logic could be our sole guide to morality. You tried to cite an example where logic would force the outcome that you wanted, but I pointed out that this was not the case.

No, you simply ducked the question once again. The question was whether my right to life superseded your right to control your body, where, if I needed a kidney to live and you were a perfect match do I have a right to one of your kidneys? You introduced an interesting premise about taxation but ignored the fact that government could tax you every penny you have but without your kidney I am still dead. I am sure that you understand that the use of a fallacy does not disprove an argument. Also, the whole point of a logical argument is to reduce down to a truism. The only forcing done here is your use of fallacies. If you can introduce a valid premise that disproves what I argue then fine but you have yet to do so. Last, we both agree that you have a right to your kidney based on natural law...that is, the right to control your body is paramount to individual freedom. However, I left open the proposition that religious edict might dictate that you surrender one of your kidney based on the premium to the right to life that religion, Christian in particular, hold.

So how about it, does Christian theology hold life so dear that you must submit your right to control your body in order to save life?

And you are a smart fellow which I both appreciate and respect so please, limit your use of fallacies and I will do my best limit mine...

Originally Posted by Odysseus

The idea of a right to control your own body is a relatively recent one. Most human societies condoned slavery, for example, and applied all manner of logic to its perpetuation. Logic, by itself, is sterile. It cannot supply a moral framework, it can only provide guidance within one.

Why is that? Suppose we strip away all rational logic and leave ourselves only with the irrational reliance on god for direction. What is the impetus to get us out of the dark ages, if we had been so lucky as to make it that far?

For all its strengths irrationalism lacks the ability to change and must be dragged kicking and screaming for any type of progress to be made. Irrationalism and rationalism are two sides of the same coin; they need each other. I would however submit that if you stripped away irrationalism rationalism would still be able to find its way. It is rationalisms ability to question and reason that renders it superior to the irrational, which, once off course has no mechanism, save its eventual destruction, to guide it back...

Originally Posted by Odysseus

The Supreme Court is not the rule of law. At its best, it is an agency of that rule, but it is only one branch of our Federal Government. It cannot write law, it can only decide cases based on the laws of the United States. If it errs (and it has, repeatedly, which is why it has repeatedly reversed itself), it does not mean that we are obligated to pretend that, like the Pope, the court is infallible.

It isn't a question of whether the court is infallible but whether we have to follow law as they dictate and therefore recognize their authority over law. I certainly don't like Citizens United but it is part of rule of law, thanks to the court, and I therefore have to respect it. This is no different then the courts multiple rulings on the ten commandments for what is permissible and what is not with respect to religious display on public lands. What I don't understand is why the objection to secularism? Don't you, conservatives, understand its importance in keeping a people free? Imagine if we had to follow one theology and couldn’t question, couldn’t choose. Conservatives always speak of freedom, Isn’t it better to act as if you actually want it...

Originally Posted by Odysseus

I never said secular law, only historical law. The current collapse of family structures does not invalidate the original intent of the commandment. If anything, it casts its importance into stark relief.

And historical law is irrelevant to millions in this country, a country where, even though a minority, they have the same rights as the majority. Understand?

Originally Posted by Odysseus

That's very sad for you, and those like you. However, it does not mean that the original commandment was invalid. As I stated above, parents have responsibilities to their children. If, due to a culture that treats parenthood as just another lifestyle choice, they abrogate those responsibilities, then the result is that there will be no one there for them when they need the comfort and support of younger people. The generation that you describe is a sad reminder of how much we have lost, thanks to liberals.

Don't be sad for me, I've been married for 29 years and am quite happy as are my two children. I was simply making the point that your statement was only partially true and becoming less true each day. As for this (all that is wrong with society) being the responsibly of liberals...my grandmother was one of the sweetest Christian women that you would ever meet and she floored me one day when we were talking and she said, (to paraphrase): 'You young people are so lucky today. You can divorce someone if you don't love them.' It turned out that my grandmother, who, at the age of 26 was regarded as a spinster by her parents, community, and perticulary church was pressured to marry my grandfather which she finally relented to. My grandfather then proceeded to beat and abused her for all of the 40 plus years they were married until god finally had mercy on her and called the SOB to heaven.

Now while my grandmothers case may not be typical I doubt it atypical and the flaws that you see now were most certainly there then only masked by a irrationalism that wouldn’t tolerate much needed change. Don’t fault liberalism for acting upon and freeing us from what has always been there.